Comments

Abstract

In her Soap Box critique of wildlife contraception (HWC 2007), Elizabeth Bingham makes 2 basic points (if she will forgive my distillation of a complex set of arguments). She argues, first, that wildlife contraception is too expensive and too slow to act to meet the needs of farmers, ranchers, and other business people who suffer losses from wildlife damage. Second, she argues, inflated expectations for the problem-solving capacity of wildlife contraception are driving more attention and research money into wildlife contraception than a more hard-headed evaluation would warrant.